Chet Baker v. Sony BMG Music et al

Here's an interesting article on a law suit between the Estate of Chet Baker v. Sony BMG Music et al. Sony BMG is accused of using Baker's music and not paying copyright royalties. There is also a proposal for a class action suit, representing other artists, for the same infringement.

There's lot of interesting items in this article aside from the original accusations, including the recording industry's proposed tax on MP3 players. They claim that an MP3 player should be included as the same type of media as an audio cassette or CDR (which include a royalty built into their price in Canada). Personally, I see an MP3 player as being like a turntable or CD player. It's the means to play the media, not the media itself. But it'll be up to the courts to make that decision.

Damn Canadian interlopers...

Originally Posted by poppachubby

Ironic how they want their money by any creative means they can muster, but god forbid they pay it out when it's owed to an artist. Truly the Devil's industry...

Amen. That's why I stopped buying those random, thematic comps...y'know, the Celtic Queens jobbers and the like...I couldn't help but get the feeling that somehow, somewhere, there was a Fish Monger drinking paint because she couldn't afford a proper education.

Seriously, I just scanned the article but at what length does Sony have to go? How many generations are owed recompense for something that they had no part in creating? Is that part of any existing contract? I don't know these things but I'd like to before I demonize Sony anymore than they rightly deserve.

So, I broke into the palace
With a sponge and a rusty spanner
She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

Amen. That's why I stopped buying those random, thematic comps...y'know, the Celtic Queens jobbers and the like...I couldn't help but get the feeling that somehow, somewhere, there was a Fish Monger drinking paint because she couldn't afford a proper education.

Seriously, I just scanned the article but at what length does Sony have to go? How many generations are owed recompense for something that they had no part in creating? Is that part of any existing contract? I don't know these things but I'd like to before I demonize Sony anymore than they rightly deserve.

Ewwww. No one drinks paint. Mouthwash and Purell are much cheaper.

I'm not a lawyer, but I work with a bunch of 'em so that give me the right to make things up and sound credible.

If a copywrite is property that can be bought, sold, and bequethed then the owners (even heirs) have a right to receive payment until the copywrite expires.

This is my opinion, which mean absolutely nothing.

Maybe our resident legal beagles, Stone or Dean Martin can pipe in with some real knowledge.